Become a Fan

January 15, 2009

Los Angeles Mandatory Spay/Neuter - Year 1

In February, 2008, Los Angeles passed their ordinance mandating the spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in their city with the intent on minimizing the number of animals killed in their shelter. They began truly enforcing the law in July (giving people adequate time to comply).

Like many cities that pass such laws, the number of dogs & cats impounded went up after passing the ordinace -- and with the number of impounds increasing, the number of dog and cats euthanized did also. And like many cities, their impounds started going up almost instantly, even before they began enforcing the ordinance. This appears to be a problem in a lot of places as most people don't pay enough attention to know the ins and outs of all of the laws, and it sounds like the general public may not have been informed all that well.

Many, including shelter head Ed Boks, will point to the struggling economy and large number of home forclosures as the reason for the huge increase (after at least 7 consecutive years of double digit % decreases). I won't completely dismiss that that may have played a role. But given that these results seem to mirror the results from other cities that pased identical laws NOT in a bad economy, I think it's worth considering that both were likely a negative factor.

In order to end the killing of animals in our shelters, we must minimize the number of animals we intake (and then increase adoptions on the back end). Creating mandatory spay/neuter laws that create more reasons for animal control to seize animals out of people's homes and bring them into the shelter only increases intake, and thus, shelter killing.

Brent, it's impossible to know if the larger intake numbers have anything to do with legislation. We don't have MSN in Oakland, but our intake and euth rates are definitely UP, and yes, many many are coming from people who've lost their homes and apartments, in addition to some new fad breeding trends that have picked up in the past year.

I can't even begin to imagine what L.A. shelters have to contend with in this current climate. Walk in their shoes for one day? No way.

Oh, I understand Donna. It would certainly be more accurate of information if they tracked owner-surrender (and the why's behind owner-surrender) vs confiscated. They don't keep track of those numbers though (although it'd be my guess that they would have tracked those if they'd had a crystal ball to see what the year would bring when the year started).

I'll give their adoption team credit, given the huge increase in intake, it certainly could have been a lot worse.

While I certainly wouldn't attribute the entire increase to the new legislation, I cannot imagine it helped them this year in the slightest.

Let's say the economy is playing the larger role - even given that fact Boks insists on adding an extra financial burden of MSN? Doesn't pass the sniff test...I've had too many dealings with people here in KC that would have gladly bailed their pit bulls out of jail if they could have afforded the fine + the added cost of the forced sterilization but couldn't. Those dogs were killed for nothing more than their poor owners being in between pay days.

> While I certainly wouldn't attribute the entire increase to the new legislation, I cannot imagine it helped them this year in the slightest.

Well with any luck, it helped to stop Paris Hilton from over producing chihuahuas!

Tracking owner surrender reasons is difficult - We've tried. Some people use excuses like 'moving' rather than elaborating on why* they have to move. Sometimes there are language barriers and staff isn't available to translate. Many are too embarrassed to talk about losing their home. Others just move away and abandon their dogs in their yards (losers) and many just use the night drop boxes, usually without surrender forms. Our boxes have been crammed full in recent months. Some days their are no free runs in the shelter, so dogs have to stay in the drop boxes until staff can euthanize to make room for the new dogs.

We just did intake on a dog whose owner was literally tossed out on the street with all his belongings. He was crying his eyes out. But no matter how hard we work to place these dogs, the sad stories keep coming in the door. I have no doubt that we're only experiencing a tiny taste of what Los Angeles is dealing with.

> I've had too many dealings with people here in KC that would have gladly bailed their pit bulls out of jail if they could have afforded the fine + the added cost of the forced sterilization but couldn't.

We have too, but not because of MSN, because of general fines for roaming at large, etc. (If you don't already have one, you guys might want to consider starting a general fund to help support your pit bull homes.)

We get a good number of calls for help from ppl who want help getting a dog out of the shelter, but none for fines related to S/N.
In Oakland, staff will waive certain fines if the home is cooperative and reasonable. I wouldn't doubt that L.A. does the same - in our experience the ppl working in those shelters tend to be decent sorts.

"In Oakland, staff will waive certain fines if the home is cooperative and reasonable. I wouldn't doubt that L.A. does the same - in our experience the ppl working in those shelters tend to be decent sorts."

Wow Donna -- some days we can hardly identify. Certainly we have shelters around that fit this description, but the ones around here that are most responsible for killing dogs certainly aren't that way.

I certainly think one of the major differences between city ACs/shelters that are well-run and ones that aren't is the reasonableness of the people who work there. If their honest goal is to do what's best for animals and keep as many in homes as possible, then things are usually fine. But there seem to be too many around here that are hell-bent on punishing people for not doing the right thing...and it ends up being the dogs that are paying the biggest price.

> But there seem to be too many around here that are hell-bent on punishing people for not doing the right thing...and it ends up being the dogs that are paying the biggest price.

That would describe some here as well. It seems wise to avoid broad stroking shelters in either direction. If I were slinging dead dogs into barrels in LA all day, I might want MSN too. In SF - nicht, nicht!

> "If you don't already have one, you guys might want to consider starting a general fund to help support your pit bull homes."

I can see where this could help with keeping dogs in otherwise decent homes. Indeed, accidents do happen: dogs get loose, registrations lapse, etc. and all of these things have and do happen to model dog owners.

Donna, are you able to have any say in who gets the money? Are there any dis-qualifiers?

If I were slinging dead dogs into barrels all day, mandatory neutering would be the furthest thing from my mind.

What I'd be wanting is an explanation for why a huge city can't help people keep their dogs or find homes for adoptable dogs and start working on that problem since we know there are far more homes available for dogs than there are dogs killed in shelters each year, even after you weed out people who like a particular type or breed.

Because as we all know, puppies, when they are available, don't hang around shelters and either do small dogs - which is what most BYBs are turning out these days.

The main reason that adoptable (ie, healthy) dogs are dying in shelters is because people in shelters are killing them. The other is BSL and propaganda about certain breeds and shapes all promoted by certain groups.

Neutering compliance is extremely high these days, so it isn't because a minority of owners are keeping dogs intact and having oops litters occasionally, and it certainly isn't purebred hobby breeders, let's put it that way.

You'll often hear people say that 30% of dogs in shelters are purebreds. Bollocks. To shelter people, any dog that looks even remotely like a purebred is a purebred which is not how you ID purebred dogs. But then, they also think they can identify mixed breed dogs accurately, which puts them in a class by themselves.

I don't know one breeder who would let one of his or her dogs sit in an animal shelter any longer than it would take to pick him up and I don't know one owner who would send a purebred dog to a shelter rather than asking the breeder or the breed club for help in hard times.

The shelter is the last resort for owners of mutts or purebreds which is why the numbers aren't that high when you consider population statistics.

Oakland may not have MSN, but doesn't its shelter require all animals be S/N before release? In any case, recently Bad Rap tout the "rescue" of an intact male whose owner, for whatever reason, chose not to reclaim it when he found out the dog had to be spayed. This surely demonstrates that mandatory s/n increases the burden on shelters and the likelihood of more dead dogs.

Unless one assumes of course, that no one can possibly own an intact pit bull responsibly and such dogs are better off dead than reclaimed by an owner.

Unlicensed strays must be s/n before redemption in Oakland. It's very true that dog owners routinely sign over their impounded dogs to be destroyed if they can't have them back for breeding purposes. Our resident dog fighter has lost a big chunk of his (very dicey) breeding stock this way. Yay.

Donovan, the decisions work on a case by case basis and usually after a face-to-face meeting to discuss. We don't pay people's fines, but we do provide an alternative to the fines by offering training classes for their dog or responsible ownership counseling for them. Some homes really take it to heart, others are less than motivated to make changes. You can usually tell if someone's shining you on in that initial meeting.

If you're thinking about a fund to help pb owners with s/n, you might want to prioritize your giving based on how motivated they are to give back to your cause - ie, can they volunteer a few hours to your organization in return, etc.

> The main reason that adoptable (ie, healthy) dogs are dying in shelters is because people in shelters are killing them.

Donna, I'm not saying people think it's fun, although I imagine a tiny minority of sick souls think so.

The point is that until we focus on why this is happening, rather than just blaming an irresponsible public, it won't change. Obviously, some dogs can't be rehomed. Some dogs are too old, sick or dangerous.

In some areas, there may be a lot of people who are indiscriminately breeding dogs. Overall though, people are getting their pets neutered more than ever before and puppies are rare in shelters. Around here, for example, they don't have many dogs at all and are always importing them from elsewhere.

The thing that bugs me about mandating this or that is that rather than surgically addressing pockets of trouble, these laws are applied across the board and include many people who aren't creating any problems at all.

There's nothing wrong with having an intact dog. For most pet owners, it makes more sense to neuter - at the right age for the individual dog. It really isn't the state's business, in my opinion, to interfere with people who are being responsible, just because some others aren't.

That's all I meant - that dogs are dying in shelters because people in shelters are killing them - not 'euthanizing' them in most cases. btw I hate that verb and imagine it's a fairly new construction.

Reality is that BR point blank tells people they don't help owner surrenders and they tell one looking for help to have your vet kill the dog if u can't find it a home. and then they put it on the blog and everyone chimes in. Now that's what happens when you participate in too much shelter "rescue." Better to avoid the shelter than send them there. Or tell people to have their dogs killed. I don't call that helping in my book.I call that Ingrid.

Los Angeles has a $22 million dollar budget for animal control. I would bet there isn't a city in the country that can touch that budget. The biggest problem is mis managment of the department in Los Angeles. With that much money, the department should be able to do outreach, education, provide spay and neuter and adoption. LA does not do any education and outreach. They do not utilize the staff for officers who actually seek out the small percentage of people that create the huge over population problem. Just like the forclosure mess...91% of those with mortgages have NEVER defaulted on payment. 9% of people created this financial mess. I would bet it's about equal percentage of those who breed indiscriminately or discard their animals.

Those who dump animals could care less about a law. It has been only proven to make the situation worse for animals, not better. It is a simple minded solution for those who can't see the larger picture.

Freeing up resources to follow through on the small percentage that creates the big problem is done in any effective a/c program.